Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Tonight is our monthly meeting of the board of adjustment. We are committed to a transparent process and encouragement of public comment during our meetings. We will be accepting testimony from all parties. If you wish to testify on any particular petition before us this evening using the Zoom platform, please use the raise hand feature, you can raise your hand at any time and we will recognize you at the appropriate time for the presentation of evidence for each case. If you're here in person, please hand staff your speakers card. Planner Robin Keefe will be moderating the hybrid meeting and will be asked to provide names of those individuals that wish to speak. I would like to call the meeting of the city of Wildwood's board of adjustment to order. The board members present today are Mr. Rob Morris, board member, Mr. Mike Lee, board member, Mr. Dave Berilino, alternate member, and myself, Arie Sprunger, acting chair for tonight's meeting. The planning the department of planning staff present is Mr. Joe Bunich, director of planning, and Robin Keefe, planner, and also the court reporter, Becca Toggle. Also present via Zoom is city attorney Sarah Rutherford. First, I offer into the record the affidavit of publication pertaining to today's meeting, March the 19th, 2026, and take official notice of the zoning ordinance of City of Wildwood, including chapter 400, article 2, authorizing and establishing the board of adjustments powers and duties. Now, let me explain the hearing procedure. Please be aware

the information I'm about to describe is also provided on the board of adjustment public hearing procedure handout which was available online prior and up to tonight's meeting. This hearing is informal in nature. However, the meeting's proceedings will be recorded by a reporter for future transcription if needed. The petitions are called in the order listed on the agenda. As the petition is called, I will ask a Department of Planning staff member to read each request into the record. Thereafter, the Department of Planning will have opening remarks and a brief slide presentation. Then the petitioner or his or her representative will be asked to state their name and address, be sworn in by the court recorder, and make a brief presentation to the board explaining the nature of the requested variance, and present such evidence and witness testimony that may evidence the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship that warrant the variance. The board will only consider the unique character of the property to determine whether they warrant the granting of a variance. Petitioner's presentation shall be limited to 15 minutes total inclusive of any questions posed by the board unless such time is extended by myself, the chair. Board members may ask questions to clarify the facts of the petitioner's presentation. When the board is satisfied with the material presented by the petitioner, I will then ask if there is anyone present or online who would like to speak in favor or opposition to the requested variance. Each speaker will be asked to provide their name and address, be sworn in, and then provide their evidence and oral testimony.

Witness testimony shall be limited to five minutes inclusive of any questions posed by the board unless such time is extended by the chair myself. Procedurally, the petitioner may request a continuation at any time during the hearing prior to a call for the vote in order to bring in additional evidence or testimony. The board may also continue the proceedings. After the submission of testimony and evidence from all interested parties, the board will ask a staff person to provide the Department of Planning's report on this matter if requested by any member of the board, the petitioner, or any individual that is participating in person or online. Once all witnesses have been heard, I will call for a motion to grant or deny with or without conditions, then the board will vote. At that time, the presentation of evidence relating to the petition is concluded and no further evidence will be permitted. The board may make a decision today. Four members of the board must vote in favor of the variance for it to be approved. Given that there are only four members present this evening, all four of us must approve of the variance for it to be granted. If a variance is approved, the petitioner has 6 months to obtain the necessary permits or establish the use or it will expire. If the board's decision is unfavorable, the petitioner has the right of appeal to the St. Louis County Circuit Court. This appeal must be done within 30 days of the decision. Okay, Miss Keefe, are there any questions at this time? At this time, if there are any questions, please raise your hand.

If you are online, please use the raised hand feature. You have any questions? Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands. Okay, very good. So, hearing no questions at this time, the meeting will proceed. Uh, if we could please read the first request into the record, which will be followed by a brief slide presentation if desired by the board members. So, let's go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the board, the first item tonight is BA7-26 Brett and Nancy Miller, 3326 Witz Fork Road, Wildwood, Missouri 63038. request exceptions to the minimum yard requirements general and the accessory buildings and structure standards for the purpose of constructing a detached garage inclusive of a workshop and entertainment space being upon the property being located at 3326 Witz Fork Road located number 26V51 01180 Carter's Carter subdivision lot 2B which would thereby authorize has a sideyard setback distance of 31 ft in L of 45 ft and an accessory structure with a square footage greater than 1 and 1/2% of the overall lot size parenthetical 4,394 square ft in L of 2,156.22 ft. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 NU non- urban resident district regulations of the city of Wildwood zoning ordinance. Note this request does not encroach into the 100year flood plan. The property is located in Ward 6. And Mr. Chair, with your permission, before Miss Keefe starts the slide presentation, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, article 2 of the city of Wildwood Municipal Code, the board of adjustment. Chapter 415 of the same city of Vagwood municipal code, the zoning ordinance, the file that has been developed and maintained by the department of planning regarding this particular request and all items contained therein, including the department's report with

recommendation. And then finally, any testimony or evidence that is offered as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, Miss Ke.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, our first case this evening involves a subject site that is located in the Gleno area of Wildwood. It is located uh off of uh Highway 109 at Witz Fork Road. Uh it is located to the south side of this private roadway maintained by uh the Wit Wits Fork Roadway Maintenance Association. Upon the lot is a 1.5 or 1 and a half story uh dwelling with a detached garage with a lean to uh to the rear of it. Uh this dwelling and garage was built in 2023. The gross area of the dwelling is 3,900 square ft. Uh the single family dwelling was the first to be constructed upon the lot. Uh then the garage which altered grading along the common boundary between the subject site and the abuing property to the west uh per submitted plans. Uh the city does retain escrow um for this work due to discrepancies of the work on the site. Uh the lot is zoned floodplane non- urban residence district as well as non- urban residence district. Uh the property includes a portion of overall area that's on the north side of Witzfork Road which is all woodlands and very steep in topography and where the house is built is much more level. Uh the 100year and 500year flood planes of Car Creek define the southern portion of the subject lot. The existing dwelling was constructed

outside the 100-year flood plane, but was required to be without a basement as a precaution. Uh, this property is part of a group of parcels of ground that have their rear yards defined by Car Creek and impacted by intermittent flooding uh while also having significant water drainage um o over other portions of them during major storm events. Uh there is additional information regarding the flood plane within your packets this evening. Uh in this case, the construction of a proposed detached garage inclusive of workshop and entertainment space um is entirely outside of the flood plane area and flood plane setback as noted on these plans. So this is the flood plane setback. This is the proposed garage and this is the dwelling. Uh there are two components to this request. One of them involves uh the the accessory building size. It is 4,400 square ft uh approximately in size uh which is a square footage that is greater than 1.5% of the overall lot size. So 4,394 square feet in lie of 2,156 uh square feet. This size uh per the zoning district also increases the setback distance that this building must be placed. So in the non- urban residence uh zoning district, you may be aware that sideyard setbacks are typically 30 ft. In this case, the building is larger uh than what is stipulated by the zoning district. Um that number is 3,270 square ft. According to the non- urban

residence district regulations, any building over 3,270 square feet uh that's an accessory structure requires an additional uh 5 ft of setback distance per every 500 square ft over that same amount. So in this case um in um instead of a 30 foot setback a 45 foot yard or foot setback was required and the petitioners are requesting um a variance to that at 31 uh feet in lie of 45 ft. Uh so those are the primary components of the request. Uh in order to address uh potential concerns about storm water, the petitioner has included uh storm water elevations uh that were submitted when the house and garage were permitted and I'm sure he will speak to those uh when he when he presents. Um the petitioner has also submitted a floor plan uh that shows that this building again is going to be consisting of a garage as well as workspace and entertainment space as well. Um these are the elevations of the building uh with the existing dwelling as provided by the petitioner. Uh with the top being the northern elevation, the bottom here being the eastern elevation and then this is the street view. Uh so what it would look like from the street and uh the idea behind the arrangement as explained to me by the petitioner was to develop kind of a a courtyard appearance or effect um to the two buildings.

Uh this is looking at the front of the dwelling and the existing garage looking south. Uh this is looking west upon Wits Fork Road. Uh this is looking east upon it. And this is looking north. Whoops. Across the street. So you can see that wooded steep section. Uh this is the neighboring property to the southeast. And as we move closer, we can see that that property has been working on some uh storm water drainage infrastructure. Uh this is looking east at that same property. Uh this is looking at the existing garage and this is the area between the existing garage and the uh neighboring property to the west. This is looking east behind the uh subject dwelling and this is looking southeast. Uh there has been significant public comment submitted uh for this request. Uh the department has received 14 uh total comments from different um households or different individuals. Uh six of them have been opposed to the request u most citing storm water drainage concerns and eight have expressed support for it. Uh there have been no variances approved for the subject property. Uh but there have been several variances considered

by this board for Witetss Fork um for properties along Witsfork Road. That concludes my presentation at this time. If you have any questions of the department, uh Director Vunich and I are available to answer them. Thank you, Miss Keefe. Are there any questions from the board members at this time? Okay. At this time, if the petitioner would like to come forward and um state your name, your address, state your name, your address, and your relationship to the property, and we'll get you sworn in by reporter.

My name is Brett Miller. Um I live at 3326 Woods Fork, Gleno, 63038. Um, I'm the property owner. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear the statements you are about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? Okay. So, if you could uh present the nature of the practical difficulty, the hardship and uh what is necessitating the variance. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. There there's basically six points to that. Um I'll make them brief. uh the overall structure to be uh that's planned is to be two stories. It'll be a perfect match to the siding, stone and roofing of the of the house. Whereas right now there's a metal steel building there. So aesthetically an improvement. Um one of the uh the underlying issues is the property is a parallelogram. It is at an angle to the road. That does make building awkward. Um keeping the house square to the road while the property is at an angle. That's where we got into a little bit of a variance issue u with the distance um to the uh west of us. Um and then due to groundwater issues um in the valley area there, we were unable to to have a basement, which is pretty typical in St. Louis to have um things, you know, like pool table, theater, uh workout space, stuff like that. Um so we'd like to incorporate that into the the structure that we're proposing here. Um, also we have no safe space to go to. Um, and as we saw the tornado warnings last weekend going off, we have nowhere to go. Um, so one of the things that we're incorporating into this building is in the there's a staircase that goes upstairs which will have 12-in concrete walls, steel plates. So, we have a safe room built into that structure as part of the the design for it. Um, and then the workshop space. Um we we we need and and parking for vehicles um including um several work vehicles that I have. It be nice to not have them sit out in the driveway um lawn and garden equipment and things of that nature which is the L-shaped garage that comes out. Um again, yeah, I'm we're not asking to to encroach in the 30-foot normal setback. It's the additional 45 foot um that part of the building can't uh meet at this point in time. Um, the new structure

will be quieter u as an entertainment space. Um, it's being moved 10 ft further away from our neighbor. It'll have two 12-in thick concrete walls and an 8 in uh exterior insulated wall versus 10 which we have now. So, uh, noise issues would be mitigated significantly. Um, if there's any questions on that, there's no change of the grading. It's already been done. So, we're not asking to elevate or change any of the grading there. U the new structure will have gutters on it versus a tin roof that just throws water everywhere. Um so the guttering um can be used to move all the water to the back of the property versus off to the side where a lot of it runs at this point in time. Um we also uh did have um MB engineering which is part of the proposal um that was presented um by Robin earlier. Um on there it shows that when we elevated the property 6 ft, you know, under permit when we built the house, it changed the uh water runoff by by half of a cubic foot per second by raising an acre of ground 6 ft. Putting a building on top of that existing ground, according to the engineers said there will be no change whatsoever. In the 3 and 1/2 years we've had the structures up there, there's been no water issues to the uh east to the west of us, excuse me. all of our water issues are to the east which the person who owns the house to the east will hopefully present here um on some mitigation things that we've done on that as well. So I would just like for you all to take this proposal um into consideration and request a variance for that.

Okay. Thank you sir. Um are there questions? Yes, Mr. Molino. Yeah, thank you Mr. Miller. Uh was the original garage part of the original construction? All right. So, that was And is it that current garage is within the 45 ft setback? It doesn't require a 45 ft setback. So, it's 30 it's Oh, it's actually 45 ft back, but the sloping hill uh is within the 30 30 foot setback. So, I'd have to I'd have to me I don't know how far that building is exactly from the um line now. It's at least the back end of it is at least 45 ft. Yes. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Other questions? No. No. Um I have a a question or two. You always have good questions. Okay. Uh how large is your current um garage space? Um the garage itself is uh 30x 50, so 1500 and then 360, so 1870 ft. 1870 square feet. Okay. Yeah. And so because of that size, it's below the 32 um 70 square ft limit. You're fine with the 30 back. Yeah.

Um so we have to ask the obvious questions. Um, so for you to be compliant with the ordinances, you would you would need to reduce the size of your current plan down to 3270 or you could move the garage around or the we Yeah, we've Are you calling it a garage? I'm sorry. I don't structure. Yeah, you would have to either move that structure to get it out of the 45 foot setback. Yeah, we already moved it. Have you

10 feet, you know, further? We get much more behind that or much further to the uh east. We're really getting in behind the house um quite a bit and my wife would here be here to testify why she doesn't want that to happen. Sure. Yeah. Okay. So, but it is feasible. You could do it. Yes, we we could we could move the well that portion of they are attached. Uh that would that would separate them. They would be two separate buildings. Then it looked like the two portions each of those portions um were in the 45 ft setback.

If you want to pull that up again. Yeah, it cuts kind of across. Strange kind of a right because because of the property lines. Yes. Part of it's outside of the 45, part of it's significantly inside of it. So, yeah. Yeah. The vast majority of it is inside. I mean, it's it doesn't encroach into the setback, right? Yeah. So, maybe if if Miss Keef can bring up there. That's what we're looking for, right? Okay. So, again, I'm going to ask the question because we always do. Mhm.

Could you make it smaller? Because today you're living reasonably fine, I guess, in your current situation. Your current um garage is 1870 square ft. You could add almost, not quite, but almost 2,000 square ft and still be okay in the 30 foot setback. You don't think you can you don't think you could either trim your the current size of your proposed structure down to to that limit or move it. And I know your wife probably wouldn't like that. Yeah, I get that. But still, we're talking about,

you know, being compliant with with ordinances and they're set up for a reason. So, yeah. So, sometimes there has to be some compromise made there.

No, no doubt. Yeah, we actually worked u a lot with the city on getting kind of this design here. Um the garage the how do I describe the garage space to create the courtyard effect to have the the the new structure meet the front of the house. Um as we look at this right where the arrow is pointing that's where car parking would be. So the big square in the back would is divided in half which is half entertainment space and half workshop. Um, I mean, effectively we we we'd have to uh lop off, you know, quite a bit of the of of that rear um section there. Um it's not a design impossibility, but it does create um it would be a challenge, but to be able to utilize what we were hoping to be able to do uh in there.

Okay. Um as to that the 500 ft. Um I think we talked about 500 square f feet in the the depth of that back square but that only takes 500 square f feet off um gets us down to about 38. So we're only still 600 ft above. U that would be relatively easy to do. Much more than that becomes architecturally cumbersome to do. So, what I'm hearing you say is maybe the back portion where the workshop and the entertainment area would be instead of being you could probably reduce that down.

500 ft is is would go back to to a design that we had that's that's workable. It gets much smaller than that. It becomes an architectural challenge uh with with roof structures and things like that to match the house. Okay. All right. And that was the attached part of the structure. It wouldn't encroach into the 45 foot setback or do you know that it still would encroach in the 45T setback because the garage car parking portion of it will still be in the 45 foot setback. More of it is in it than the than the entertainment space. Yeah. Um to get all the way down to 3200 ft would be a design challenge. Okay. Uh Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Yes. I would just like to interject and note that if he did shave off what how much did you say? 600 500 500 square f feet then it would go down to a 40 foot setback line down to a 40ft set back. You would have more of a I'm sorry what it it would go down to a 40 foot setback line because you it's five feet for every 500 ft.

Okay. Yes. Yeah, Bill, when you originally built the uh the structure, was the hardship you had there and related to the positioning of the current property on that on that plot? Other words, you said that the the the uh acreage itself is sort of a parallelogram. It doesn't it's not square,

right? So did you did you have to position the current property in such a way to set you can see that right right there to to be square onto the road which normally design a house you want to be square to the road u and then the property is at an angle you can see right there yeah we had to put the the house you know at extreme angle to the boundary lines

and the setbacks um on there um kept growing and growing and growing the house was supposed to only like 70 ft from the road. It w up being 150 ft back from the road just because of different setback issues and and and things. So that's where we w up having to build the house. That was the agreed upon place to put it. So yeah, at the hardship is in I'm trying to translate what you're the hardship is the positioning of this pro of the new structure. I it's it is hindered by the fact that the property doesn't sit square. Correct. Correct. Yeah, that's really what you're what you're saying, right? And had the house been able to be closer to the street, we everything else would have gone with it and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yeah. The step back of the current house was part of the original approval process for the home, right? You had to agree to that back. Okay. Last last question. Um you you read probably the recommendations from the from the department that included um four fairly specific um recommendations um that would be required of you uh should we approve. Are have you read those or are you familiar? I do. My neighbor is has that sheet right now. Um but yes, those are those are easy to meet and very agreeable. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Are there any any other questions?

Did you say you never had any problems with the recommendations? No, sir. You you don't have any problems with them? No. No, it'll be fine. It's got to be a little give and take flexibility there. So, yeah. So, if you did, just to kind of clarify something that Miss Keefe um shared with us, if you were to trim 500 square ft off of the u the design, then the set back would go from 45 ft to 40 ft. Okay. So, that would help. That would help.

The back structure would be then out of the And then, of course, it's the car parking section that still be slightly in it. Right. Right. Okay. Any other questions? I thought I see something about somebody was afraid or that you or you use that space for living space down the road. No, it's just my wife and I. We we live in our house. I mean, there like down the road. You wouldn't turn it into a living quarters. Just a the there's space upstairs that was kind of

what? I'm sorry. We we're basically out of time for our 15minute thing, but um I think we're very close to wrapping this up. So, we'll go ahead and allow us to continue the the conversation.

Yeah. In the in the designs you that I'm If there's space, you may as well build with it over the garage we're going to use for storage just because again that's a good storage area. And we thought about putting an apartment upstairs, you know, children come back in town or something like that to to visit or something. But there's nobody's going to live there. It's not going to be a a a fridge or a stove or anything in there, but you know, a bathroom and a place to a couch or something. But yeah, but there's there's space above that that'll be, you know, that would be usable to develop. So, of course, our architect drew all that stuff in there. But yeah.

Okay. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? No. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. All right. Um, are there any speakers in the audience or online that would like to um present at this time? Miss Keefe, if you would call forward those individuals, that would be great. Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh, my first speaker's card is John Carter of 3330 W at Sport Road.

Okay. Okay. Mr. Carter, if you would uh state your name, your address, and relationship to the property, and then get sworn in. All right. My name is from you. And remember, you have about five minutes. Sure. Thank you. My name is John Carter. I'm at 3330 Woodset Fork Road, Wildwood, Missouri. Okay, Mr. Carter, go ahead.

Thank you. Um, I am the uh you can see here from this I am the uh property owner to I guess you would say the west right here. I don't you don't see these pictures. I'm sorry. But I am the property owner of on the west side of this property. I'm the one that's most impacted by this uh variance request. Um I've got some photos here that I'd like to show. Uh I've been here for approximately 20 years. I've built this property back in 2006. Uh you can see my last name is Carter's. This is Carter's Corners. This is all this property was part of my family's property. they they sold it to the millers. Um, one of the reasons why I'm here I'm concerned is, as everybody knows, is the water runoff. So, I'd like to present some pictures here that I have uh behind you. I guess you guys can all see these. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. So, what I wanted to show you real quick is these are the pictures here. Um, this is what my house was. As you can see the all this uh uh land to the I guess to the east is where they're building now. As you can see where the water flow is on this water shed. You can see it all goes down the middle of this this uh this whole used to be a horse pasture. So this is where we've had some issues and I think we've been here before. We're talking to a lot of these this whole area. So I just want to show you some pictures here. This is what it looked like when it was when they're building it up. Um, here also I wanted to show you here. Here's what the original grading permit is and what the house is shown. You can see a little corner of that where it kind of encroaches onto the property. This is where my concern is. This is also the setback that you guys are going to be uh

voting for tonight. Uh this isn't still if I understand correctly from the city my understanding this grading permit is still open and there's still issues here and um and you'll see from these pictures from all this here it is here now you can kind of see where it's at in the corner and here's some of the pictures. This is our side view of how close they are in reins. Um you can we go I'm just going to go through some of these. These are all this is where all the flooding comes into and the storm water runoff. You can see all these pictures here. Um constantly different times of the night, all days when we have these rain events. You can see all this water flooding. And these are all the concerns that I have. You can see through all these pictures. This is one of the big large storm events. This is our front yard. All that water comes in, has to go somewhere. And this is also just the back. I just wanted to show you. So really what I wanted to explain is how concerned I am with this uh water runoff. I know they've been working at it. Um there is still like I the city will tell you that there's still an outstanding uh permit on here. Um I'm kind of surprised that we're actually here talking about it if this is still an open permit and this is the same setback that you guys are voting for uh to approve is what the issue is. So um I really don't want to go into more than that. I think I've got everything I've shown you here with my concerns. Um I don't have a problem with the house. It it his his accessory building. Uh it does look nice. I have to admit that. Uh but I really do have

concerns about the setback. I just don't think it is uh wise to be granting that on such um property that we have that you're going to oversize. Like you I think you talked about uh the sizes of the building. Um, and then with all the setbacks and issues we have, I've really I just can't see how this is even we're talking about it right now when we still have an open grading permit concerning about this uh setback. Now, um there are some um noise issues uh but that's standard. Uh I had do have very concerns it's going to be three times the size and everything else. So I do there's any other Okay, I don't want to interrupt you, but we are at the end of five minutes.

It's amazing how quickly it goes, isn't it? Um, but I think this is a I I know it's a critical issue for you and for the neighbors, I'm sure. So, I think we'll go ahead and continue um the discussion. Is there anything else that you need to present? Oh, no. No, you're good. Okay. Do we have some questions for Mr. Carter? Clarify anything? Well, maybe you know when you were showing the pictures of the water. Mhm. Were we were looking at your house, right? No, that's the other side. That's the house. Oh, that's

that's the garage on the other side. That's I don't have to go back. That's actually the garage.

Yes. Yes. That's the property. Yeah, that's the runoff on the property we're talking about. That's all flooding and coming back onto my property, Mr. Chair. Yes. I believe it's the combined area of the two sideyards. So, Mr. Miller's and um the petitioners, Mr. Carter. Yeah. So, Mr. Mr. Carter, excuse me. Yeah. So, like this picture right here. Yes. That is the Millers. Yes. So that's the miller. So it's the combined sideyards between the two homes, right? That's where the water drains,

right? Okay. It I didn't realize there was an open area behind his garage. Okay. Or their garage, sorry. Okay. And so that's So is the water on your property or is it on It's on both. It's on both. And that's what you were trying to say is it's

it's right there on the property. Right. And as that as it we get rain events, it grows. Um it could be like this. It could be even more. I have lots of pictures. And this is the concern we have. The city has not uh agreed to the way it's graded now. And that's why I believe and the city will have to let you tell you that why they haven't approved it as of today. But this is the setback that you'll be voting on. Right. Right. And so that water that we're seeing is Yeah. It's right on the property line, but it kind of makes the turn there and it would be on Mr. Miller's property, right? Yes. Correct. Okay. Except

Do you have any pictures of your property with water other than right there on the line? No. Just right there in the corner. Okay. So the impact to you at least at this juncture is really what we're seeing right here is that amount of water right there kind of on the property line. Yes, it it over and above the property line. If you go back to those pictures, you'll see that's the problem we have with the grading. It is that is on my property. Yeah, I suppose it probably is because that that was sloping down. Yes. If you look at that that is the issue. Yeah, that's and and your concern is because that mound is now there, that water normally would have just went on straight on down. Yes.

But now it has to Yes. around. Yep. And now they they want to enlarge and to uh buildings be enlarged and uh I just don't feel that we haven't got this one addressed yet. And uh now you're granting or requesting or asking for I guess you could say. Sure. Yeah. Right. Okay. Any other questions for the petitioner? No. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Are there any other speakers? Miss Keith? Yes. Um, Mr. Chair, our next speaker is Dan Laughlin at 3320 Wits at Spork Road.

Okay. Mr. Laughlin, if you would uh state your name for the record, your address and relationship to this property. Yep. And they might sworn in. Yeah. My name is Dan Lachland. I live at I own the property at 3320 Woods at Fork Drive, Wild, Missouri, 63038. We are the property to the east of Mr. Miller. Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help me. Will you speak into the microphone too? Thank you. Yes, I do. Uh couple couple things that I want to talk about is uh with the water flow or the question of the water flow.

There's a request for you to speak a little closer to the mic. Thank you.

So, uh the water flow there. So, we just are finishing up our property which you guys uh approved our building uh about a year ago and whatnot. finish it up. And we did some good considerable grading and and lessened the the the backup of water tremendously since since we've done our regrading and uh made a path to the creek gets to the creek a lot a lot quicker than it did before. So the backups aren't near what they are. We had that last couple rains and that that you wake up in the morning and there's nothing there. So we've really improved that flow coming from the east uh to us or from the west coming us to the east. So there's not much impedement there. Um, and the way I see it, Mr. Miller's not actually adding any more water flow to what's there. He's not uh moving moving the the the the same area is going to the same place. That's where it goes now, if that makes sense. The same amount of water is where it goes now. This new structure is not going to add more water to the flow of it. Um, part of the problem I think is is uh maybe this the the Mr. Carter's property, it originally was put too low. I mean, it's considerably lower. Mr. Miller rose his up because of the water and his is considerably lower. I get it. It was 20 plus years ago, but that's not our fault now or whatnot. That there's always been water flow through there. you know, the the water comes from the very far uh west and comes all the way down through and it always has. So, I don't understand why that is Mr. Miller's fault uh you know uh that Mr. Carter maybe put his house too low, put a basement in. Well, Mr. Miller didn't put a basement in because of that fact. So, and you know that's that was an existing condition. I don't know what we're supposed to do about that. um

with the setbacks and whatnot, there are I believe there are many properties up and down the street that have accessory structure structure or structures that are near or or encroaching on the setbacks all home. That's just the way this subdivision is. Everybody has an accessory structure all the way back from the from the 70s when these first homes were built in there. It's kind of the nature of the living in there. And everybody's got their ATVs, they've got their horses, they've got their whatever uh tractors and things like that. And it's it's it's pretty common with the neighborhood what he's trying to do and that the location everybody's trying to squeeze it under property the best they can. He can't really go to the to to the south. There's the flood plane. So, he's just trying to get the most usable property usable space out of his property. I don't feel that it's it's a nuisance at all. It's actually going to make the properties look better in my mind. Um, for one, it's going to block actually will block my block me from having to see Mr. Carter's 20 or 25 cars parked in the front yard the whole time. Licensed or unlicensed, doesn't matter. But, it's still an eyesore. So, I'm for it for just because of that as well. But, I I do think it's going to make the neighborhood look a lot better and it's consistent with uh with with with what we do in this neighborhood. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Lachland? Thank you, sir. Miss Keefe, are there any other speakers? Mr. Chair, my next speaker's card is for Kevin Gleason at 3465 Witz Fork Road.

Okay. Mr. Diesson, is it Cleveland? Okay. if you would uh state your name for the record, your address and your relationship to the property and then get sorted. Kevin Gleason, 3465 Woodsets Fork Road. Um Wildwood, Missouri 63038. And we're located probably a mile on down the road uh from this property. Um and just briefly, I want to say Oh, I'm sorry. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you guide. I do.

Um I'll make it brief. I meant we're farther down the road. So, we drive up and down the road all the time. Um I do appreciate we don't have an HOA because again developed over the years and that type of thing. It's one of the things we love about being out there, but also with it is, you know, we have no control over what things look like. Uh whether there's gravel drives, no drive, you know, those type of things. But so I do appreciate someone who's taken the initiative to build a nicel looking structure that we drive by on the way in to house to keep their equipment in. I know Mr. Laughlin spoke to you know parking lot with a lot of cars. Um you know that's the nature of the beast unfortunately. I mean I will say it's it in my wife's eyes my eyes it's an eyesore. Every visitor we have is like what's with all the gar? Um, but that's that's allowed. But I do appreciate that he's taking the initiative, the aesthetics to make it nice as we come in and just improve the valley.

Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you. Okay, Miss Keith. Are there any other speakers? Yes, Mr. Chair. My next speaker is Mary Olsen at 3426 Witz Fork Road. All right. And you know the drill by now. You say your name, address, relationship to the property.

3426 Wits Park Road. We've been a resident out there for 50 years. So, okay, we'll get you sworn in. All right. Hear me? Yeah, my name is Marie. All right. Thank you. Would you share your thoughts?

Yeah. I said, um, I truly believe that Mr. Carter should really have the final say on this matter since it is his property that is having all the water issues that is hurting his property and his property value. There are no variances considered with this water problems ongoing. There should be uh this property was actually Mr. Carter's sisters. I don't know who was in charge before, but Wildwood's board at that time would not allow them to put a tablespoon of dirt on that property for a slab home. So, they moved away. Um, that's where they wanted to build. Mr. Miller now has a wait a second. If any circumstances were there at that time, I do not know what they were. Maybe you guys have the records will show. Mr. Miller now has a sprinkler system so he can put more water on Mr. Carter's property. What is the elevation of Mr. Miller's slab and garage now? That was Was that what was proposed? Has Wildwood's engineers checked that? I believe he can build his new adventure more behind his home or closer to his east side where his beautiful big ditch was put in so he can control the water problem on that side. He could do the same thing on this side if he wanted. That's causing Mr. Carter all the problems. That's all I have to say.

Okay. Thank you. Uh are there any questions for the speaker? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Miss Keith, any others? Mr. Chair, I have no more speakers cards. However, there are quite a few individuals online uh at this time. If any of those individuals would like to speak, please use the raised hand feature.

Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands. and Miss Keefe. Um, I see a hand in the audience. There's a gentleman that I think maybe would if you could just fill one out after you talk. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Why don't you come on forward and uh we'll uh get your testimony again. State your name, your the address, your address, relationship to the property, and then get sworn in.

Uh my name is Drew Selenrich. Uh, I have two properties. I have 3433 Remington Heights Drive and I also am building a new house at 3469 Was Fork Road. Raise your right hand. You solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you guide. Yes.

First off, I'd like to just state that I was the guy that did the grading on both properties, Mr. Laughlin's property, the barn that's going up now, and also Mr. Miller's the pictures that Mr. Carter showed you of all the water, 95% of that water is on Mr. Miller's property. I've laser leveled that whole field. There's only natural grade of less than 1% across that whole entire pasture from the west all the way to the east. Water doesn't flow very fast. And 1% I'm in the grading business. I build golf courses. is I laser level everything. Water does not drain adequately in 1% through grass. But the pictures they showed you and all that water that they're saying is on Mr. Carter's property is not on Mr. Carter's property. I fixed Mr. Carter's property when I did the work for Mr. Miller. We went on to Mr. Mr. Carter gave me permission to go on his property to fix the water holes that were on his side of where those trees were. So, yes, he's showing you the very worst of the worst in a flash flood situation. And 95% of that water went down exactly how the grading permit showed. You see the contours? That water supposed to come down, make a turn behind Mr. Miller's property and go over. Then when Mr. Laughlin built, we took the water instead of going all the way down along the pasture, we put the ditch that there was pictures of that, too. that that ditch has been laser leveled to take the water to the creek. So, it's graded correctly. Mr. Miller is not trying to build he's not going to change one bit of water flow with his structure. He is the water flow is there and it works. So, what what they're trying to do and Mr. Miller couldn't push his house to

the east because of the 100red-year flood plane. His house had to be there. The only place he can expand is to the west. because of the 100red-year flood plane, you cannot build there. So, that's what I wanted to portray is the grading is correct. The water flow is correct. It's not backing onto Mr. Miller or Mr. Carter's property. You know, 95% of that water is on Mr. Miller's property and it's doing what it should be. It comes down around that fill and goes to the east. Then it picks up the new swale on Mr. Laughlin's property and goes to the south to the creek. So that's all I have to say.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions from the board? I I actually do have a question since we're talking about grading. Um I don't know. It appeared as if some of that grading was across the property line onto Mr. Carter's property just from the images that I saw that were presented. I don't know if they were if it really was or it wasn't, but it sure looks like it was. Um, the other question that I have is I read that there are some issues with not getting the grading permit finalized or approved or whatever. I guess it's been approved, but if there's outstanding issues, what are those? Are you aware of those outstanding issues?

No, I'm not. You're not aware of the outstanding not outstanding issues. Okay. But if you want to pull up that one picture that showed uh Mr. Miller's grading plan on the very beginning, you'll see the contours go within a couple feet of the actual property line, the base contour. Yeah. I I think I think what and we had a meeting we had a meeting when we were out there with Mr. Carter, with Mr. Miller and myself, and I was like, "Well, Mr. Carter, there's a water hole in your property. You're there's a hole on your property. I need to go across the property line, disturb your grass so I can, you know, drain that pro that water hole on your property. And he was agreeing to that at that time.

Yeah. And I think what I what I think I understood was that that there's I don't think there was a concern or argument that the grading plan showed that it was away from the property line. But Mr. Carter is contending, if I understand correctly, and I think I am, is that that's not in reality what happened. That grading occurred and encroached into his property.

With his permission, none of that fill that you see, those contour lines are not on Mr. Carter's property. We cut there was a ridge that was holding the water back onto Mr. Carter's property. We cut the dirt down and we encroached onto Mr. Carter's property, but we took the ridge out so the water could get off of his property and come around the back of Mr. Mr. Miller's garage and go towards the east. Okay. So, you in essence were filling the hole or making it so I was eliminating the hole. Yeah. Yes. Okay. That's what your testimony is. Yes.

Okay. All right. Well, maybe when we're you're finished, we can get clarification from the department about this issue with uh this grading. So, yeah, I don't know anything about that. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for clarifying what you do know. Okay. Um and your test your testimony also is that because of what you did with the other property, you've created an environment where you can pull that water away from Mr. Carter's property quicker and get it down to the creek. Um, that's correct.

And I don't know if it's working or not, but I think your testimony is it is working that it water away from Mr. Carter's property quicker. Yeah, correct. Any other questions for the uh for Mr. Solenrich? Right. Senrich. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Yep. Yep. Okay. Um because we've been talking about this grading. Well, first let me see. Are there Well, no, since we're on the topic, maybe the department could address this um question about the um the grading permit and then if there's any more speakers, we'll get to them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, in preparation of the department's report with recommendation, it did an investigation of grading permits that had been issued relative to the property. The department's contingent isn't necessarily that the grading is in air. The grading permit has not been closed out and the city still holds escrow. Why that is important is is as part of the permit being closed out and the escrow released, we verify that the grading is consistent with the approved plan. So the final step has not been completed. It's not to say at this stage since the inspection hasn't occurred that it's incorrect. It's just we don't know. And so in the recommendation, the department identifies that it's appropriate to close out the permit, verify the grading, and then release the escrow. And then if the board grants the variance, we'll start over with a new plan and ensure the grading is correct again. Okay. So, I don't want to say it's just paperwork because again, the final inspection, as Mr. Lee will tell you, is critical because that is the inspection where you make sure all of those things that you put into the plan to guarantee the least amount of impact on properties, whether that's the subject property or adjoining property, have been addressed. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Uh do you also when you look at the grading plan, you know, are you checking like the elevation like you know they were supposed to be they add six feet of soil in instead of 7T you know I mean are you

checking to make sure that that the amount of fill or whatever is is compliant is that part of the grading plan I guess. Yes. The elevation, the change in elevation of grade is critical. The slope of the grading is critical. There's a number of items that our code inspector Frank Laughlin looks at. Will he be able to distinguish between a 6 in difference or not? I can't say that, but for the most part, we get the grading right a whole lot of the time.

Got it. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Now back to any other speakers that would like to um give testimony. U Mr. Chair, I do have a raised hand now online. You do have a raised hand. So I'm going to promote Mark Bromeier.

Okay. Okay, Mr. Bromeire. Uh, it looks like you're muted there, Mr. Broier. You can get unmuted. See here. All right. There you go. Okay, good. We can hear you. Okay. So, Mr. Bromire, of

course, we know your your name because but go ahead and state it for the record, your address and your relation to the um subject property and we'll get you sworn in. My name is Mark Burrow, 3348 Witsfork Road, Wildwood, Missouri, and I live three four properties west of the Millers. This is the court reporter. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you guide? Yes, I do. Okay, Mr. Bromeire, go ahead.

Okay. I I've submitted all of this um through the website, but uh I thought it would be good to hear out loud during the meeting. Um well, the second floor space and and Mr. Dr. Miller has addressed this a bit, but the second floor space is labeled as a lounge. It has a full bath which would allow it to be used as living quarters per the zoning regulations for this to be considered an accessory building. No one would be allowed to live in the building and unless they were related to the primary residence by birth, marriage or adoption. Um, if the accessory structure, if an accessory structure of this volume and twice the regulation compliant area gains approval, it definitely needs to satisfy with the required 45T setback so as not to be imposing upon the adjacent resident to the west as well as to mitigate any cross property uh property line drainage issues. Uh, for reference, the current resident has a footprint of about 2745 square feet, best I can tell, and a and a 3875 square foot of floor area, including the second floor. In comparison, the proposed accessory structure depicted on sheet A1 of the preliminary floor plan data 122 posted on the website has a footprint of approximately 4169 square foot uh about one and a half times that of the house. I believe that the building design and the site layout can be massaged to accommodate the 45 foot minimum sideyard setback dictated by the minimum yard requirements. If the proposed building were to be rotated to be parallel with

the west side of the existing residence, the north face aligned with the existing residence and the driveway between the buildings reduced to 28 foot. It may be possible that the 45 ft setback could be accommodated. This would require reducing the width of the existing driveway, but for a 90° parking spaces, a 24 to 26 ft aisle is recommended standard. I believe that would I believe that there would be adequate turnaround area in front of the existing garage on attached garage um on the existing house to maneuver a boat into the proposed garage, but that would need to be verified. of the existing garage per the uh original construction site plan. Um the grading around the existing garage shown on C1 appears to be approximately what is observed at the property, but the existing garage appears to have been built approximately 45 ft from the west property line instead of 31 ft. So there's supposedly more space there to work with. I guess locating the new structure with similar grading 15 foot closer to the property line will cause more rain water to be routed around the neighbor's property to the west. Existing grades nearing the west property line need to be preserved so as not to create a new site drainage issue for the neighbor. Also, any further addition of dirt to the south toward the creek should be minimized so as not to impede the flow of the water through the flash floodway. And that's all I have to say.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Broomemire. Are there any questions from the board? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bire, for your testimony. Thank you, Miss Keefe. There are there any other individuals online that would like to speak? Uh Mr. Chair, I see no more raised hands online. No raised hands in the audience. Uh so I believe we are done with our speakers. I

think we're through that. Okay. Very good. Um at this time, uh would anyone like to hear an oral presentation of the department's report? No. Okay. Uh if the department would like to make any final comments, this would be the time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have a few things that we would like to add to the record relative to this request. First, as the report from the department identifies, we are supporting the variance. Key in that support are a couple of items that have been identified by some of the speakers. First and foremost, when the Department of Planning visited the property and viewed the neighborhood, the subdivision, we drove the entire length of the road a couple of times. The use of accessory buildings or outbuildings is extensive in the Wits of Fork subdivision, and that's a key determinant to the department in that the character of the area accommodates what's being proposed. In many regards, what's being proposed will be a substantial upgrade relative to what is on the property now in terms of the garage and the leanto. So impacts in the determination of the department at least relative to the character of the subdivision are minimal. The second component is what we all know is that wits fork has a storm water drainage problem. There's flood wave, there's flood plane, and then there's just the runoff from these extreme weather events that we see more often than not these days. And that is why in the report the department has established the four conditions and principally all four of the conditions are intended to address water runoff. The first relates to a engineered plan being submitted in conjunction with the construction of the new building. That plan has to be prepared by a professional engineer with experience and expertise in storm water management. As you'll recall, when we

were trying to address the issue with Mr. John's on the property that Mr. Laughlin now is developing. That was a key component of a lot of our discussions is making sure that the engineer and the plan were consistent with good practice. And here we're asking for the same. Secondly, whatever that plan ultimately would show in terms of storm water improvements, whether it's a system of culvert pipes that have been installed on the east side of the subject lot or additional grading to minimize the amount of water storage in the common area between Mr. Miller and Mr. Carter or any others that they would be again represented on that plan. Thirdly, there is a desire to add additional landscaping. Landscaping in the context of that which would do well in a wet environment and help to mitigate some of the flow or speed of flow that's associated with these events, these extreme weather events. And then finally, as is mentioned and was discussed earlier, the closure of the grading permit from the last project needs to be completed. And then on the east side of the property, maybe not so much on the petitioner's uh parcel of ground, but there has been additional storm water work that was not indicated on any of the plans the city approved for that project. Therefore, the position of the department is if the variance is granted by the board tonight, those issues need to be addressed before the authorization for building permits be released. We need to clean the slate, understand what's been built, whether by permit or not, to ensure that the engineered plan that

ultimately is submitted to the city reflects current conditions. And those are the conditions that the department would emphasize are necessary for its support to be presented to you tonight. So again, we are recommending approval. We believe there's a lot of benefits to this particular structure in terms of aesthetics um addressing the issues that are at hand as well as just consistency with the character of the neighborhood. With that, Mr. Chair and members of the board, if there are any questions for the department, Miss Keith and I will be glad to try to answer them at this time. Thank you.

Are there any questions of the board?

So, I I think I will ask I applaud the department's efforts to try and address this runoff storm water issue. It's it's a problem in a lot of places in the city. I know. So, I think I applaud you for that. What I still scratch my head on a little bit is just the sheer size of this structure and, you know, also honoring and protecting neighbors that happen to live next door to it. And you know I um I would ask you have talked to the petitioner about maybe not making it quite that large. I mean what what room do we have here on that?

Well first and foremost I've not talked directly with the petitioner. I've talked to the neighbor to the west. I believe Miss Keefe has talked to the petitioner and we actually met with the the petitioner prior to the submitt of the board of adjustment application. What I will tell you is is that the petitioner under oath during testimony said that uh 500 square ft of the existing and the the proposed an existing application could be removed from the accessory uh structure. So I I believe the petitioners answered that question. What I will tell you is that in the non- urban resident district, our requirements relating to accessory structures are very unusual. We had begun a process of updating the sizes related to accessory structures and much to the department's surprise, we actually increased the allowance for their sizes. And in some instances, you can have an accessory structure on your property up to 10,000 square feet in size. It's usually an indoor riding arena. The two instances I think we've done that in that regard. We don't put a limitation on the number of accessory structures. So if the applicant, the petitioner were to split those two structures, he'd have a 30-foot setback and there wouldn't be any requirements other than just the normal non- urban resident district requirements. So in this particular instance, I think the function of the design relative to the fact that the petitioner doesn't have a basement is relatively logical.

And so, do we want to necessarily say split the structure? You can have a 30-foot setback and ultimately probably achieve the same goal with a covered walkway between the two. I've leed over the years that from the perspective of the department, we encourage people to show us what they want, what they think will function, what will benefit the property, benefit the neighborhood, benefit the community. And often times if we can figure something out that'll make it work then we advocate for it. In this particular case the department is just it's the storm water storm water storm water. And I think having an opportunity to kind of start fresh and see with this new building and have gutters and downspouts that go away from the common boundary area between the two properties. things like that. I think we actually can improve the situation

and from the perspective of the department, if we can do that, I think we've had a successful recommendation. So, if I understand you correctly, Mr. Boonich, if those two blocks the building, if they were ever so slightly separated, then they would be in compliance. Yes. It's just because they're slightly connected.

Yes, sir. Like I say, it's it's not something that the department anticipated when we updated the code, but you can have as many of those accessory structures within the context of 2200 square feet as you want. There's no sight coverage ratio is basically what it boils down to. Okay. Right. Wow, that's an interesting nuance, isn't it? Yeah. Yes. It came from the council people in Ward Six. Okay. Okay. Um, Mr. Lee,

yeah, I have a question. Um Joe, as far as the site plan, can you pull the uh grading plan up, which was one of the first slides? And where where I'm going to go with this when she finds the photo is there have been some statements tonight that are technically correct in that when rain falls on an area, that's the rain amount that hits that area. But there's a difference between the velocity the the water comes through the site. Rain falling on a roof steep pitched shingled and hitting gutters and going to a downspout has a much higher velocity at discharge than rain hitting flat ground. So the rain event under a flash flood scenario is going to be increased with the surface area of the building. So that has to be addressed in the final design. Secondly, if I'm looking at this drawing on the lower left hand corner, the water is running towards the bottom of the sheet, which I think is west. Is that correct?

South. South. Okay. So that's running south. That would No, excuse me. The way it's orientated here, it's running west. So that where the garage would be sitting, the water is going to come back to the west and have to run around his whole site. It's going to come rather quickly because it's coming off of a roof and downspouts. All the rain that hits this area andor is coming off the hill under a flash flood scenario, that volume of water is increased as it moves down. This is what you see when river levels rise and fall. It's the same thing only this is a flash flood scenario.

Okay, adding this much square footage increases that. Just want everybody to know that the issue of variance required into setbacks. I don't understand because he can move his building and stay within the 45 ft if he just changes it a little bit. He's got a huge paved area to turn cars around in front which he does not need. It's not a requirement and I don't see where the hardship is other than what he wants. So there's two issues with this storm water velocity flash flood and there's really no hardship. He can make this site plan, make the two buildings tied together and make it work if he just puts a little thought to it. And certainly I'll try to address the first one with the chair's permission. You're absolutely correct. Imperous surface is not going to act like pvious surface which is grass, soil, and grade. So certainly when the department of public works and the department of planning look at plans relative to the wit fork area, we've learned over the years to pay special attention to that. Obviously, we know that we have a situation already. Anything we do in terms of adding imperous surfaces or obstructing the natural waterways, the drainage patterns, we need to address those very, very carefully and with the context of what's going to happen upstream as well as downstream. So, your points are well taken. In terms of hardship, the department can look at it in several ways. It didn't delve to a great deal in the report about these, but remember in Witetfork,

there is a series of lots on this south side of the private street that part of them are on the opposite side of the street. So, this isn't a true 3 acres that has no encumbrances. A 70- foot private roadway easement goes through the lot and then the roadway itself within that easement. That portion of the lot north of Witset Fork Road is non-buildable. Can't it we talked about that with Mr. John's seeing if we could push the home up on that side. It's steep. It's it would need a variance regardless of what we do. Secondly, there is flood plane on the site and that flood plane has not only an impact but there's a 50-ft setback that the city imposes from the edge of that flood plane that reduces the buildable area. And then finally, and this was identified by the petitioner, is just the general shape of the lot. Not a square, it's not a rectangle, it's a parallelogram, so it has a slight tilt. And if you try to set your improvements so they look like they face the street, it does add a bit of a a unique characteristic. I'm not going to say hardship, but it's certainly all of those play into this. So when the department looks at the lots, regardless of this application or any application, car creek, floodway, flood plane, 50-foot setback, portions of the lot across the street that are steeply sloped and for all intents and purposes non-buildable, it does parcel down what's available to build. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bunich. Are there any other questions for the department? Okay. At this time, I am going to close the proceeding um for a vote. Uh, would anyone like to make a motion to approve, to deny, or approve with conditions? Berlin.

Yes. I'd like to move to approve the variance with uh the four conditions as stated in the Department of Planning's recommendations. Do I need to read those four into the record or do you you know what those are? That's my motion. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Bernolino, how do you approve? Mr. Lee, deny.

And I think I'm also going to deny. So, I'm sorry. Um, the variance has not been approved. Okay. Okay. At this time, um, can we read the next? Certainly, Mr. Chair.

The record 8-26, Crest Files, 4041 Montgomery Lane, Wildwood, Missouri 63069. request an exception to the specific guard requirements and exceptions for the purpose of constructing a 12T by 30 foot shed and private stable combination upon the property being located at 4041 Montgomery Lane located number 26 Y23015 Montgomery Estate subdivision track 7 which would thereby authorize the accessory structure to be situated 40 feet from the western property line instead of the required 100 ft distance. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 and non earth district regulations of the city of wildwood zoning ordinance. This particular property is located on ward six. Mr. Chair, again, Miss Keith begins her slide presentation. The department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, article 2, the board of adjustment of the city of Wilder municipal code. Chapter 415, the zoning ordinance of the city of Wildwood municipal code. The trial has been developed and for the city of Wildwood and all items contained therein, including the department with recommendation and test.

Thank you, Mr. Munich. Miss Ke, you give us a presentation.

Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, our next uh our next request this evening involves a subject site uh that is 3.05 acres and located in the Montgomery Estate subdivision. It is located in Western Wildwood uh just northwest uh and adjacent to State Route 100. Uh this lot is accessed by Montgomery Lane, which is a private roadway. This property is at its terminus at the culde-sac. Um, within this area are other large residential lots and horse ownership and associated infrastructure is pretty common in this this area as well. Uh the lot has 312 ft of frontage on Highway 100 and 250 on Mon Montgomery Lane. It is occupied by a single family dwelling that was built in 1991. Uh this dwelling is one story. It is a ranchstyle home and has two 2,373 square ft of total living area. It's accompanied by an attached garage, a deck, and a number of porches. A large area of this lot is fenced uh with a portion of it uh to the east of the lot um and then a portion of it to the west side. Uh the west side is um reserved for pasture for horses and the uh eastern side is for the family's use. Uh there is a slope topography on this lot descending from the northwest corner of it uh to the eastern property line with an overall relief of 42 ft. There

is uh the lot consists of grassy turf area with dispersed trees with woods along its borders. Uh the request uh from the petitioner is to construct a 12 foot by 30 foot barnstyle run-in shelter for tack equipment, hay storage, and shelter for a horse during inclement weather. Uh this structure is proposed to be placed 40 feet uh from the western property line in lie of the 100 ft required by the non- urban residence district for private stables. Uh, private stables as defined by chapter 41530 definitions are defined as a detached building accessory to a residential use for the keeping of horses owned by the occupants of the premises and which shall not be used for any commercial purpose including the boarding, hire, sale or training of horses. Uh the petitioner notes in their application that this structure will be professionally built by Amish Builders and they have submitted drawings for the structure as well which are included in your packets this evening. Uh this is the front to the petitioner's uh residence looking north. This is across the street directly. This is looking west on Montgomery Lane and this is looking east to the terminus of it. This is looking northeast uh to the

eastern portion of the petitioner's yard or the subject lot. And this is looking northwest at the western portion reserved for the hor's use. This is looking towards the most affected neighbor. Uh this is looking north at the location of the proposed building should be right about here. This is looking east. Uh again, this is the fenced uh portion of the yard for the family's use. And this is looking west um in the fenced uh portion for the hor's use. And again, this is the proposed location of the shelter. Uh the petitioner did submit with the application evidence that the uh homeowners association has approved of the structure and the most affected neighbor is in support of it. Um at this time I'll conclude my presentation. Uh Director Vunich and I are available for questions if you should have them.

Thank you Miss Keith. Are there any questions for the department at this time? No. Okay. Right. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, if we could have the petitioner come forward, uh, make sure that you state your name and address relationship to the property, then we'll get you sworn in. Sure. Thank you. Excuse me. I'm Chris Files. I'm at 4041 Montgomery Lane. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I'll help you gun. Yes. And I'm assuming you own the property.

Oh, I do own the property. Okay, good. Just want to make sure we get that. Okay, thank you. Okay, go ahead.

Sure. If it's okay, I would just like to read a statement I wrote. Um, I want to thank you all for the opportunity to explain my reason in asking for this variance and for the chance to respond to the planning department's recommendation to deny this request, which of course I found disappointing. Now, I'm asking to place this structure at a location in my backyard that requires very little grading compared to other locations. and it does not require any tree removal as opposed to other locations. As you'll see in the materials I submitted, I have approval on this plan from my HOA trustees as well as the neighbor whose property line borders mine on the side of the proposed structure, the most affected neighbor. I want to emphasize the neighbor whose property line would be closer than 100 ft from the structure does support my request. In recommending denial of this request, the planning board indicates proximity to my neighbor's well to be a consideration. And in doing so, the planner cited Missouri Department of Natural Resources guideline 10 CSR23, which stipulates AFOS or animal feeding operations be placed 100 ft from wells. However, the structure I'm proposing be 70 ft from my neighbor's wellhead is a simple runin shelter. It does not fit the DNR's definition of an animal feeding operation as seen here. Let me That's really small. Do you have this in front of you?

Mhm.

Okay. So, I'll just give you a second to read that really quickly if you haven't already. This is not what I'm proposing to build. This would be more like a what I interpret as a feed lot, a cattle feed lot, or a an operation for feeding animals. Not what a runin is. Uh, this runin is simply a structure to offer two horses shelter in extreme weather and store tac equipment. As you might know, horses prefer not to be confined, and they don't spend long stretches of time in a run-in shelter. And the shelter's open construction allows horses to enter and exit as they please. In other words, horses are not forcibly confined. They're not fed or stabled in these shelters typically. Therefore, such a structure does not fit the criteria of the Department of Natural Resources. Those guidelines the planning department cited in its reasoning. As to any question about horse waste effect on a well, because horses don't spend experience extended periods of time in runin shelters, the waste is no more concentrated in them than other areas accessible to the horse. Uh, also the proposed location grades slightly downward away from my neighbor's property, further reducing environmental impact. In its recommendation, the planning department suggests I have other options on my property to place this structure. But I want to stress again, this location is not simply a preference or what I want, something we decided on flippantly. This would require the least amount of disruption to the grade of the land. No tree removal. It faces southeast which is necessary for weather considerations for such shelters. Um and it will preserve the aesthetics of the more publicly visible portion of my yard. Beyond that, the portion of the yard not reserved for the horses. The

previous owner constructed um a structure for it's a zip line, you know, a structure that my kids love to play on and zip back and forth. There's also a trampoline there, not reserved for the horses, and it would be dangerous to have horses in that area if the kids were playing. It it would require significant changes to that area. So the the yard is divided by a fence into two areas and that area has those structures in it and those would require removal if we were to put horses in. Again, I have approval from my homeowners association and the neighbor whose property line we've discussed. So with those factors in mind, for the planning department to recommend denial was was very surprising to me and maybe more surprising is the inconsistent consideration of factors between applicants for variations. As an example, I'll point to another request on tonight's agenda 926. Mark and Lynn Ride at 4095 Montgomery Lane have requested a variance to build a nearly identical structure for their horses. The rights live in my neighborhood. They're one of my seven neighbors. They moved in recently and quickly after doing so began construction on my similarly sized run-in structure without notifying the HOA and to my knowledge without obtaining a permit from the city of Wildwood. They just started clearing trees and building. And as it turns out, their run and shelter is closer than the 100 foot mark from their neighbor's property. So the request they have before you tonight for a variance is on a structure that's already built. Construction is not halted as the planning department's recommendation indicates. I assure you the building is standing and the horses are on site. I pass them every day.

Can you advance? No, you're good. Just want you to see if that vote is from today. That is a complete structure and there are horses on site as you see. So imagine how it felt to receive the notification from the planning department that the rights project is recommended for approval while suggesting you all deny mine. I urged this board respectfully to consider the message this sends a rule following Wildwood resident. I took no action to build before petitioning this board. I talked to my neighbors and trustees and received their permission and I displayed the city sign in my yard inviting neighbors to weigh in on the request. The other applicant on tonight's agenda did not seek permission from neighbors or the city before building. Their public notice sign regarding this meeting was laying on the ground half the time and they're asking for you to grant a variance after the fact. Yet the planning department suggest you give them the go-ahad and say no to me. In recommending approval of the rights request, the planning department writes, "While the department does not support granting variances after the fact, it does acknowledge the city's processes can occasionally result in confusion for homeowners." So, to that, I would ask if I'm allowed to claim confusion, as that seems to have benefited the other petitioner. Now, I say this not to discourage you from approving my neighbors variance, but to ask you to consider the message denying mine sends to those who follow the rules. Also, consider the legal implications and the precedents this could set. When I spoke to Robin with the planning department last week, I mentioned we had

not built our structure because we hadn't yet talked to this board, but our neighbors had built theirs. and she told me some people would rather ask forgiveness than permission. And if we look at the department's recommendation, it seems that strategy would pay off for those not following procedure. My ask of this board tonight is that you recognize those who do ask permission and who do follow the rules and who do receive support from those impacted by a project. In closing, I'll reiterate I have my neighbors and my homeowners association support. I've addressed concerns about well proximity and made the case for why the proposed location for the structure is the best option for several reasons. Now, I simply respectfully ask this board to consider my reasoning, my adherence to the city's rules, and my family's commitment to being good neighbors and Wildwood residents, and please grant us this variance. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Files. Um, are there any questions for Mr. Files? No. So, we you know, we'll ask this question again. Um, you saw this in the previous case. Can you have you considered moving the location of your of your barn or whatever it is? Yeah,

sure. We've considered moving it for for the reasons I stated, I really do can honestly say with a straight face, this is the best option with the least amount of disruption considering the grading of the land. The land only in the grade of the land only increases as you go further away from my neighbor's property line, if you will. So, it would require a sign more significant grading the further away you move it. And then you'll hit a fence uh not long after if you keep moving it, you'll hit a fence that divides the yard. Then the structure would be in the main part of the yard where my children play, where that zipline structure is that I've been talking about. It would require so much more to make this happen. I really believe that this option is the one that disrupts everything the least. And I told my HOA that. I told my only impacted neighbor that and they're both on board. They've both signed off on this.

Right. Thank you, sir. Yes. Yeah. Mr. F. Uh, how many horses do you have? None yet. None yet? Zero yet? No, but we plan on getting two. Yeah. Getting two. Okay. You said that backyard area is is divided. Okay. approximately what is the square footage or yard square yards of the property that the horses will actually be on? Could I give I'm not a math guy, so could I give you a fraction? I would say I would say the area for the horses is about a third of the yard and the area um for the family is about twothirds of the yard. That's just the way the fence is up. Okay.

Yeah. Uh this sounds crude, but if you put those two horses in that sounds like fairly confined area, um they're going to go wherever they're going to go, right? In terms of, you know, they're going to use the whole property to to to go. They're going to be at the fence line doing their thing. Um dropping whatever they're going to drop, which puts it within how how many feet of your neighbor's well. Oh, where the horses will roam? Yes. Leaving the structure aside for a second, just where the horses will roam.

Probably I'm just going to guess, but probably about 50 feet from from my neighbor's well. Um, and to my awareness, there's we're not talking about a rule for horses roaming, a distance required for horses roaming near a well. It's the structure itself. Right. I understand. Hopefully that answers. Okay. without the structure, they're going to go any place they want on that particular piece. Yeah. Yeah. And one important, it might be important to note also though because they're roaming, there's not a concentration of waste in a certain area. And of course we'll be good neighbors and you know pick that up. Okay. But were they confined to a smaller and smaller area, of course that'd be there' be a concentration of waste. Does your neighbor have horses?

No. No. But they've expressed interest in using ours. Of course they do. Yeah. All right. Thank you. the structure that you're um proposing to to build, would the horses ever be like confined like they're pinned up or whatever or is it truly they can just come in and leave it anytime they want?

It's a really good question, a really important distinction to make between a runin, which I'm proposing, and a barn. um a runin is open. They're not confined at all. They just have the option of going in there if it hails or if it's 110° outside or something like that. I we it's not for keeping them confined with, you know, with some kind of closure or something like that like a barn or a stable might be. I'm not sure that really comes across in the department's recommendation. I'm not sure that's even really common knowledge. But a runin is just their option to go in in extreme circumstances and they can come and go as they please. And if you know horses, you know they tend to not really like being confined. They're they're prey and they want to not be confined. They don't feel safe when they are.

Okay. Yeah. Will you feed them in that area? No, we'll we'll feed them. We'll have a we'll have some kind of pin where we put the hay in in the area where they roam. So while it's not they're so the feeding is not confined to that area either. No. No. Okay. Thank you.

Sure. So, is it safe to say that the horses, whether they're out in the pasture or in the open area or whether they're in the open run or whatever, their waste, it's it's not concentrated in the run area necessarily because they're not confined. They can just move freely however they want to move.

Yeah, that's that's very safe to say. That's that's the case. So, if you're being a good horse owner and a good neighbor, you just pick up the waste all over the pasture like you see all over Wildwood. Yeah. They don't they really tend to prefer not to drop any waste in the runin area because again it's it's a confined space. Any other questions? Nope. All right. Thank you, Mr. Files. At this time, uh, Miss Keef, are there any speakers that would like to give testimony?

Uh, Mr. Chair, there are no speaker cards that I have, but there are individuals online who may wish to speak, and if they would like to use the raised hand feature, uh, we can promote you at this time, Mr. Chair, I see no raised hand. Okay. All right. So, I guess that takes care of that. Uh would anyone like to hear an oral presentation by the department? No. Okay. Then um if we would could have the department give their final comments that would great.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Miss Keefe will provide the department's recommendation. I want to address a couple of items that the petitioner noted. Certainly the rights have done something wrong. For that they'll get a summon to appear in municipal court for building a structure without authorization from the city and a permit from St. Louis County. The greater risk is that if you choose not to support the variance, then after 30 days, if they do not file an appeal in the St. Louis County Circuit Court, we'll begin the process to have them remove it. So regardless if Mr. Files thinks that that's the best approach or approach he should consider, I would recommend to anybody here in this building are online get permits one way or another. We remove things without permits. It may be a long and arduous process for the city, but we've got seven days a week, 24 hours a day to do it. So, I appreciate Mr. Files not moving forward, but there will be a price to pay for the rights. Nobody basically ignores the law in Wildwood. Period. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bunich, for that clarification, Miss Keefe.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh and considering these two requests in this same subdivision for the same type of use, uh the department applied the lens that we always do, which is do the unique circumstances of the lot, do the site characteristics um support the variance being requested? Is there a practical difficulty? Is there a unique hardship? Those are the things that we look at. Um so in this in this case we were not looking at who built what before um before this variance request was filed. We are simply looking at that objective through that through that objective lens. In the case of uh this uh request uh that is before you right now um the department determined uh that the site characteristics did not support uh the private sable or run-in shelter in the location being requested. Uh there is a reason uh that in the city's uh zoning regulations we require uh that such a private you stable use be situated 100 ft from any property line. And that is to avoid circumstances like what we're talking about where you know there could be the potential for contaminants to get into um a neighbor's well. Um, clearly, uh, the neighbor, uh, does not currently own horses and may not understand some of those impacts. Uh, but the Missouri Department of Natural Resource, and I double checked myself, uh, does recommend that uh, private stables or any type of um, use of this nature, housing, livestock, or animals be 100 ft from a well. And since we're talking about a neighbor in this case and not even the petitioner's own

well, um we have to look at at that potential impact for a public safety and health reason. Um secondly, if you looked at the pictures that I showed you earlier in the department's presentation, uh there are there the whole the whole lot is fenced. There's a a part of the lot that is twothirds of the lot is fenced and used for the family's use. in that part portion of the property is well away from any neighbors. It's next to Highway 100 and there's a lot of grassy turf in that area. Um on the uh western portion of the light lot, there is a a much lesser amount of room for horses and the proposed structure is um by according to the petitioner's uh testimony is almost necessarily placed just 40 ft from the property line. Um, so we do see an alternative placement in this case uh for the structure that's being requested. We also see a potential uh public safety and public health uh issue with it. Um there would be far greater uh or far less impacts to the surrounding area if the petitioner reconsidered the location of the proposed use. Um the scale of the variance being requested is also a consideration. In this case we're talking about 40 feet in lie of 100 ft. That's a pretty substantial difference. Um we're we're talking about the private stable being 60% closer to that property line. Uh so while um while the department does acknowledge the petitioner's concerns about potential um you know additional site disturbance or hardship in uh in in constructing the shelter in a different location. Uh we don't believe that those outweigh um some of the findings that I just

expressed. Um, so that concludes the department's uh recommendation on this matter and that we are recommending that the board deny it in this case. Thank you, Mr. Berdolino.

Yeah, Robin ask couple questions of the department. Um the the shelter is a shelter as I understand it from what Kishner has testified to that it's not a permanent it's not a structure which the animals are going to be permanently confined or they're going to come and go as they please just as they come and go throughout the whole property that they're being confined to. What what makes this structure um I'm not going to say this right, but what makes the structure so significant in a setback if it's not going to confine the animals to a particular location? I I I can appreciate that. Yeah. When we put a structure, you got to have 100 ft. Okay. But if it was a barn and they were going to be stabled at night in there and fed in there and Yeah. But just to have a roof over their head, you know, when they can normally all, you know, 24 hours a day wander the whole property. I I'm really really not convinced that the setback is that appropriate.

Now, now is it is my understanding that the horses are going to be contained to the western portion of the property, unless unless I missed a portion of the petitioner's testimony. Are are are they roaming the whole property?

I think I think I heard the petitioners cuz Mr. Berino asked the question, how close will you be to the property line or maybe to the well, but the petitioner had said um 50 ft, which is 10 ft different than like where this structure is that doesn't contain the the horses. So, I think what I'm hearing Mr. Bernolino say is is there really that much different? I mean, let's pretend that we just put a tent cover up there. I mean, yeah, I think we're kind of struggling with with the whole notion of is it is it creating more concentrated waste than if they're just walking around in the in the in the field? I I certainly have I certainly have appreciation for not doing anything at all that would be a problem in terms of contamination with a a neighbors or my own well. I get that. Um but if the horses are going to be that close to them anyway just because they're in the posture, I'm I'm scratching my head as well on that. There's some confusion on the distances and I just wanted to read what's in the report. Uh, under item three, it says that the structure would be 70 ft from a well, which to get it into compliance, it would only need to move 30 feet. It's not from the setback or the property line. It's the distance from the neighbor's well.

That is correct. Okay. So, can the structure be moved 30 ft? That would be a question for the petitioner. And secondly, can you throw the um existing grading plan up again that you had was one of your first slides because I think the neighbor's site is uphill of this whole tract. So if a well designer, engineer, whatever you want to call it, I don't see how any of this is going to move uphill to get into their well.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll miss um finds the correct slide. Mr. Berlino the the premise of all of this is based on the definition of private stable and the definition is very general in nature. It talks of keeping horses. It doesn't say um stabling them doesn't give a duration of time. It just says keeping which is a very general term. And from the perspective of the department, you ask us to basically be conservative in our interpretations.

If that interpretation is too conservative, that's why there's the board of adjustment. And so again, just so you understand, the definition is very broad in many ways. And so keeping is keeping to the department means that they're in that they're in that structure for a period of time. it. The definition doesn't tell us if that's overnight, an hour, or five minutes. So, that's where you all come into play. Kind of like the colored roof panels for solar panels, right? That took that just brought up a bad memory.

I thought I fixed that. Let's move on from that. Okay.

I fixed that, didn't I? Um, so it looks to me like all the water's running downhill from the structure, not uphill, if I reading this correctly. And Mr. Lee, that that is the U determination that Miss Keef and I made. If we could go to the petitioner submitt, the flat plan or the plot plan with that. And I'll make the apology that we didn't require something better, but we don't know what the grading is based on that. So without better information, regardless of what the existing contour show, we don't know if the grading is going to change that. So we have to be conservative. Again, you heard tonight as part of sworn testimony that this location has the the intent is not to grade. So then from the perspective of the department, if that's truly the case, then the water waste doesn't run uphill. Okay, thank you for that. Um, are there any other questions for the department at this time? Yes, Mr. Bernolina.

Yeah. is can we ask the petitioner um if you don't mind can we have the petitioner come back up as uh as Mr. Lee pointed out the the the setback is from the the distance from the well is 100 ft and you're only going to be 40 ft from the property line. How how far did we determine that that you really are from the well itself? 70T is what's reported. 70 ft. Is it possible you can move this structure 30 more feet into your property?

It's not possible without taking down a few rather large trees and then you're getting close to the part of the fence that divides the two uh portions of the yard, if you will. I could probably cheat it forward, you know, by maybe 10 feet or so. Um, but because of other factors, I think you have to, if you will, choose your lesser of the evils and taking down a few very significant trees. The impact that would have versus moving the structure, you know, that far, considering that it does grade downhill away from my neighbor, that's why the location made the most sense. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Piles. Before you leave the podium, so again, Mr. Chair, just to be clear, I believe Mr. File said in his original testimony, there would be no grading in association with this particular location. If he could just reaffirm that if I if would be no grading. I said very little grading if any is needed at all. Yeah, I think that's what's written down in my Yeah, because if you're going to start grading then that that's another thing.

Yeah. And I'm not trying to open up a can or any or anything like that, but if you wish I had my photos up there, but if I had a photo in my first SL, are we able to pull that up? My first one that I sent you, Evan. So, two back from that. There we go. Okay. So, if you look at that top photo in the corner where the two fence sections meet, if you will, just off from that is where I'm proposing this structure. And I think you can see what a grade that that's grading downward. that structure would face the way you're looking at the photo. You'd be facing the front of the the opening of the structure. So, it grades downward. And to put the structure up, we would just the builders would just have to see it. It really wouldn't require much grading. It would just sort of naturally slope down. And that's okay. It doesn't need a foundation or anything like that. So, we really wouldn't change the grade much, if at all. So, is is the building just I mean are the corners going to be like just posts sitting on concrete peers or what?

Yeah, it can actually just sit on gravel. No, it's just going to sit on Yeah, it it'll have pens and forgive in construction, but it'll have pins that are that are holding it down, but it does not need a foundation. Yeah, there's So, you're not going to have disturbance that way. Exactly. Um, would you be okay with a con I'm not saying we're going to, but if if the if the board were to approve this with the condition that um we confirm that the slope the the grade of of the property does in fact go away from your neighbors. Well, would you find that as an acceptable condition?

Yes, I would. In fact, it's what I'm trying to show with these photos. So, anything that I could, right, help to clarify that even more, of course, I'm okay with that. Right. Right. Yeah. I think again, I applaud the department for being careful and conservative. Um, it's a little thorny when the definition for a structure, you know, yeah, when we think of keeping an animal, we think of putting it in somewhere, closing a door, and that's that. But that's not what this is. This is just a it's basically a rope over over their head as Mr. Berdolino was was talking about is is our understanding and that is correct.

That is correct. Someone brought up the idea that is correct. Someone brought up the idea of putting up one of those tents that you see in a car lot. It's like a really nice one of those. And I do think the broadness of that definition is it kind of does a disservice to the to the department too because there's a really big difference between a horse runin in a stable or a barn. You keep a horse in a barn. Stable. A runin is they just come and go as they please. If it's hailing, they're in there. If not, they're probably not in there. Right.

Okay. Thank you for all this clarification. That helps. Any other questions for either the petitioner or the department? No. Okay. At this time, we're going to close the proceeding for a vote. Okay. Um, could I get a vote to either approve, deny, or approve with conditions from the board? I'll make a motion to approve with the condition that the grading is verified that the runoff natural runoff flows away from the neighbor's well. Do I have a second? Thank you, Mr. Berelino, for the second. Uh, Mr. Morris, how do you vote?

Approve. Mr. Lee, how do you approve? I mean, vote. Approve. Sorry. Mr. Bolino, how do you

approve? and I likewise approve with that condition. Congratulations, your variance is granted. Okay, time to move on to the next uh case. The next case on tonight's agenda 26 4095 63069 request an exception to the specific yard requirements and exceptions for the purpose of constructing a shed and stable upon the property lane located 610083 Montgomery Estate subdivision act run which would thereby an accessory structure to be situated 75 ft from the northern property instead of distance from for each for a private stable excuse me the request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415 090 in your non- urban district regulations so this of local zoom ordinance. This particular property is located on W six. And again, Mr. Chair, with your permission report, Miss Ke against the presentation of slides. The department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, article 2 of the city of Wagwood Municipal Code, the board of adjustment. Chapter 415 of the same city of Wildwood Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance. The file that has been developed and maintained by the Department of regarding this particular request and all items contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, Mr. Chair, any testimony or evidence provided as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Munish. Miss Keith.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, our next case this evening involves a uh 3.05 05 acre lot also located in the Montgomery estate subdivision this time towards its entrance. Uh again this area is characterized by large residential lots and horse ownership and associated infrastructure appears to be quite prevalent. Uh the subject site is uh zoned non- urban residence district and also uh has a similar stipulation to it that uh a private stable must be 100 ft from any property line. The subject site is a corner lot having frontages on two sides of it, including 332 feet along Montgomery Court and 143 ft on Montgomery Lane. Um, an irregular lot, which you can see here, uh, separates this subject lot from Highway 100. This irregular lot is 0.82 82 acres in size and was recently purchased by the petitioners um to serve as additional pasture for their horses. So it is um therefore in under common ownership. Uh this lot uh is occupied by a single family dwelling that was built in 1983. Um it is 1,976 square ft in total living area and there is a garage, porch and patio also on the property. Behind it is a small uh pond

and now uh there is also uh appears fully constructed uh stable uh located upon the pond. Uh the property is sloped uh from north the northwest corner descending to the southeast uh property line with 48 ft of total of overall relief. Uh the property consists of grassy turf with dispersed trees with uh it being heavily wooded on the rear third of it. Uh the petitioners are requesting um now I suppose to maintain uh their 40 footx 40 foot paddock with a 10tx 30 ft runin shed attached to it. Uh this structure is located 75 ft from the western property line and 84 ft from the southern property line. Uh the homeowners association regulations stipulate that a stable must be located in the rear third of the lot and 50 ft from any property lines. Um according to the petitioners, to also meet the city's requirements, the stable would um also would have to be built uh within their pond in order to make that work. Um and so um that explains that uh this is a drawing of the structure submitted by the petitioners and this is a picture of it. Uh this is looking southwest at the the front of the petitioner's dwelling. Uh this is looking southeast towards Highway 100. And this is Montgomery Lane. This is looking northwest. Uh this is Montgomery Lane. And this is this turns

into Montgomery Court. And this is Montgomery Court. This is looking west. This is looking northwest towards the uh new structure. This is looking northwest at it from the petitioner's dwelling. This is looking east towards Montgomery Lane. This is looking southwest towards Highway 100. And here you can see the private stable. And this is looking northeast towards Highway 100 or northwest. Well, no, northeast. Sorry. Get and turn around. This is looking northwest. Uh that concludes my presentation at this time. If this uh board should have questions of the department, Director Vunich and I are available to answer them. Okay.

Are there any questions at this time? Yes, Mr. Lee. So, I'm looking at the current request item 8, and it says 40 footx 40 foot stable and the 10 ftx 30 foot runin shed. The photos didn't show the stable. The photos were taken the day of the department site visit. So, do we know where the stable is going? I assume it's going where it's located on the site map.

Okay. So, it's the fence in front of the runin.

Okay. Any other questions for the department at this time? No. Okay. Thank you, Miss Keith. Uh, if the petitioner would like to come forward and um again give your your name, your address, your relation to the property and then get sworn in. Yep. I'm Lyn Wright at 4095 Montgomery Lane and property owner. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I'll help you God. Yes. Hey, Miss Right.

I I didn't prepare a petition or a presentation. And I think the planner did a good um uh presentation of pointing out our hardship, which is trying to um arrive at a compromise between being um far enough away from uh the I'm losing my train of thought. So, we have to be um in the back third of our property to put up the barn. and then we have to be 100 ft from you know the property side. So that without being in the pond that seemed to be like the sweet spot was where we had put it. So that's why we arrived at that area and um to answer your question that 40x40 is the paddock area and then that part was approved and then um we ran into the variance problem with the shed. Happy to answer any other questions.

Hey, are there any questions for the petitioner? So how far is the paddock area from the property line? Um, I'm not sure, but it's further in towards him. I mean, it butts up right to the pond. So, I'm I'm I'm not exactly sure.

On just a quick review of the plan that was submitted by the applicants, it looks like it's about 85 to 90 ft. It would I mean the way it's situated it would be further away um because it's an oddshaped piece of ground. It is further away from the property. So it's roughly 10 or 15 feet too close to the property line if you want to look at it that way. Yes. Is the um the padock and the the runin elevation wise is it above or below the pond?

It's above the pond. It's above the pond. Yeah. A lot of everything kind of drains into the pond. Um everything drains into

Well, from like that we sat down and then you know the hillside. Um it looks like the previous owners had done some uh had created some swailes and um goes into the so it's not like um I trying to say everything slopes down towards Manchester the the road. So the pond is there. It does collect water off the hill. Um I don't know if that's answering your question but yeah. Well, what what I think about I don't know what you're using the pond for, but if you have animal waste upstream and you get rains, is it

Yeah. washing all of that? We That's I know that's a maybe a separate issue, but I think it comes into play a little bit as we think about location of the padock and the Yeah. Yeah. We had purchased that side piece um literally just like 10 days ago. So that was with the hope of fencing that in for more of the pasture and they would just be using this to come up and drink the water. They're not going to be hanging around in that paddock very much. So yeah, but we I mean you do have to clean that out and keep it clean every day, the manure. So doing that.

And then there's the obvious question. Um why what happened? Why did we not? Yeah.

There was some confusion. Um we when we came and talked here um with the permit, they said, "Well, you need to go also on the permit portal for St. Louis County." So, I got on there and punched in our address and it said, "Results not found for 4095 Montgomery Lane." And so did it several times. It still came up that way. And I don't know, made the hasty wrong decision to be like, well, I guess, you know, can't make get a permit for whatever reason, you know. So, we I'm like, we were under the gun to get our horses moved. That's a whole another story. So, we started on it and then um code enforcement left us a little note and I when I called him back he said he was really surprised when he said that those are the results I got when I was on the county website. He said really and and then come to find out there has been some problems with that. But he said you still need to go through Wildwood. So the structure is not complete. Um, so we stopped everything on it and then went through the permit process and then got the fence done u permitted but then now waiting on this. So it's not really complete but um the I don't even remember her name Katie. She said we'll get the the fence permit. So like I said we were under the gun. We had to move our horses. So she goes at least you can put them in there and they'll be there. So that part is done.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lee. St. Louis County's changed their whole process and it is a nightmare. So I can confirm on what you're saying. I I didn't know what I mean, what are you going to think? It's And then later on somebody says, "Well, maybe you're too close to the Franklin County line." I said, "I don't know. It just said that you have to have a contractor to actually pull permits these days. As a homeowner or an engineer, architect, you need a contractor. So, going forward, everything that we see is going to be different.

That's how it's going to be now. Good to know. And I tell you one thing, when we put the fence up on the the new piece, we are we're not doing this like let they're going to handle all the permitting and stuff because this is like a whole experience. So yeah. Yeah, I'm sure it has. Okay. Mr. Munish, do you want to chime in here? Mr. Chair, with your I do have a question for the petitioner. Miss Keef mentioned you had purchased the property that's intervening between your boundary line and Route 100. We did.

Is it your intent to consolidate that particular lot into your other lot? I don't know. I guess we'd have to weigh the benefits of doing it versus not doing it. I I don't know. I really don't know. The only reason I asked Mr. shared members of the board if they were to consolidate that lot into their existing lot with the home, they don't need a variance to that side, yeah, right? I don't Yeah, I would have to see what the That's one benefit, but that would just be a replat.

Yes, it's a boundary adjustment where we basically consolidate the two lots and eliminate the line. I wouldn't necessarily delay your action on that. And I'm just saying that if you were to grant the variance in some regards if their plan was to consolidate then it's really temporary in nature at least on that one side. Could that be a condition of the approval? If if you were to do that I would give them a a time frame that of at least 12 months just because sure

the surveyors the as Mr. will attest are very busy. There's not as many of them as there used to be getting them out to the site. There is an expense. They may want to save some money prior to doing it. Things like that. Sure. Of course. Of course. Uh, M. Right. Would that be acceptable to you? Yeah, I would just Is that done through the county? I have no idea where to begin on that. Actually, it's done through us now. So, we can be with that. Yeah, that would be an acceptable answer for you. Yes. Okay. Yeah. All right. It's good to know. Uh, any other questions for Miss Wright? No.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Thank you, Miss Keef. Are there any other individuals that would like to provide testimony? Mr. Chair, I do have quite a few individuals still online. if any of them would like to use the raised hand feature at this time. Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, at this time, would anyone like to hear an oral presentation of their department's report? Nope. All right. Well, then let's hear uh closing comments, final comments from Miss Keith,

Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh the department is supporting uh this petition. Uh we have determined that there is no alternative location on the lot in this case. Uh the neighboring dwelling is 140 ft away and uphill. Uh there is a heavily wooded buffer between this structure and the neighboring uh property. uh the petitioners have already taken steps to mitigate the impact um in purchasing that property to the south. Um so that concern is alleviated and certainly if if there's a lot consolidation that would remove it entirely. Um we did not consider the self-imposed hardship uh when making this analysis. We looked at it purely through the objective lens of the site characteristics uh which I just stated. Um, so again, we are we are in favor of it. Thank you.

Right. Thank you, Miss Keith. Uh, any other questions or comments from the board? At this time, I'm going to close the proceeding for a vote. Uh, I'd like to hear if there's a motion to approve, deny, or approve with conditions this very I'll make a motion to approve with the condition of pursuing a lot consolidation and a replat with 12 months to get the initial permit.

Thank you, Mr. Lee. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Thank you, Mr. Morris. Mr. Berino, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lee, how do you approve? I mean, approve. I'm having trouble tonight. Uh, Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve.

And I likewise approve. Thank you. Your variance with that condition is approved. Congratulations. Okay, let's move on to the next case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The last item on tonight's agenda besides the minutes is BA10-26 Scott and Janice Lottle 18626 Thistle Hill Road, Wildwood, Missouri 63038. Request an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing a concrete block retaining wall with a maximum height of 8.5 ft upon the property located at 18626 Thistle Hill Road located number 25X13 0134 the states at August Taven Creek Plat 2 lot 20 which would thereby authorize a sideyard setback distance of 16 ft of 30 feet from the eastern property. property line. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 NU non- urban resident district regulations of the Wildwood zoning ordinance. This particular property is located in Ward 6. Again, with your permission, Mr. Chair, before Miss Keefe begins the presentation of slides, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, article two of the City of Wildwood Municipal Code. The Board of Adjustment, chapter 415 of the same city of Wildwood Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance, the file that has been developed and maintained by the Department of Planning regarding this particular request and all items contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, Mr. Chair, any testimony and evidence provided as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Keefe. All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, our last case this evening involves a three arco 3 acre uh parcel of ground uh that is part of the estates at August Tavern Creek subdivision. Uh this subdivision consists of 27 lots with the last of which approved by the city in the year 2000. Uh, as you can see, uh, the subdivision is generally located, uh, west of Highway 100 and south of Melrose Road. Uh, this lot has 260 ft of frontage along Thistle Hill Road, a private roadway maintained by the subdivision. It is zoned non-urban residence district. Uh the there is a single family dwelling located upon the property. It is 3,855 square ft in total living area and it was built in 2023. So another recent build. Uh there is a driveway, porch and attached garage associated with uh the residence. This property is steeply sloped, descending from the high point of the ridge where the dwelling is located at the northeast corner uh down to the southwestern corner uh uh descending 96 uh ft in total. Uh the property is heavily wooded with grassy turf area around the dwelling. Uh the petitioners are requesting to construct a new uh concrete block retaining wall uh which will be 8.5 um in maximum height.

uh the 8.5 um height will be within the building uh envelope but a small portion of the wall which is considered as part of this overall structure um is around 6 ft in height and that is in the uh sideyard setback area. Uh the petitioner is therefore requesting a 16 foot eastern sideyard uh setback distance in lie of 30 ft uh that is required by the non- urban residence district. And again um the department considers the entire wall a single structure when it is looking at these situations. Uh which is why you are um here. Um, this is the front of the dwelling looking south. This is looking west towards the uh terminus of Thistle Hill Road. There's a culde-sac there. This is looking east. This is looking across the street looking north. This is looking south. Uh again, this is the subject dwelling. Uh this is looking southeast. This is looking south. Uh this is again the petitioner's dwelling. This is looking southeast. This is looking southwest. This is looking also southwest.

Um, and that's the rear of the petitioner's dwelling. And then this is looking northwest towards the attached garage. Uh there has the department has received two written comments. Uh one of which was in opposition to the request and that is the most affected neighbor in this case. Um the other one uh was just asking for clarification from the department. Uh that concludes my presentation at this time. Uh the department is available for questions uh if you have them. Thank you. I actually have a question. Um, if you go back to where the topography slide is showing the Yeah. is there any way to maybe with your pointer or whatever. Is there any way to

I uh tried to advance really quickly and it We'll get there. Too fast. Yeah, there. There. Yep. Is there any way for you to like say this is where that retaining wall is on the on the property where it would go? I mean, I think generally it's just right behind the dwelling. It's going to go right in through there. Yes. And and it's kind of a horseshoe. Yeah. I I just think it's easier if we see the site plan previous slide. Yes.

Boom boom boom that that Yes. I think it's slightly um it seems slightly extended over towards that most affected side but yes this is the neighbor that right thank you thank you any other questions so I have a question

Mr. I know this is for setback which would then take the whole line of the property line down. Is there a way you can do a grading easement just for the wall area and leave the setback the way it is? Is that something the city can do? No. Because of the constructed nature of it. Okay. Can we modify the setback to just go around the wall and not do the entire site? Because by granting a setback that would open up Pandora hands box to where they could do whatever they wanted to on that whole property line.

Mr. May advertised it just for the retaining wall. So if another structure or building was proposed, it would not be covered by a granted variance for the wall. Understood. But is there a way that you can make the line work around that? You can certainly document the setback.

You can certainly instruct us to basically define the authorization to the wall itself and the minimum setback associated with it. Thank you. And Miss Keith um put a little sticky note on this particular slide because we'll come back to that.

Absolutely. Any other questions for the department at this time? No. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, if the petitioner would like to come forward uh either in person or via Zoom and um make a presentation as to what the practical difficulty is or hardship is, that would be uh that would be great. So, I'm assuming since I don't see anybody coming from the audience here that that the petitioner is going to be joining us via Zoom or maybe not, I don't know. I noticed that he was speaking. I I apologize. If you are speaking on this petition this evening, please use the raised hand feature at this time. Thank you. Well,

this is interesting. Mr. Chair, if there is not an applicant to present the case, the department would respectfully request a postponement. I'm going to give about 30 more seconds here to make sure that no one raises their hand. And if not, we're going to

Mr. Chair, let me make double sure that I didn't receive an email from the petitioner identifying what's going on. Well, I think we're going to go ahead and uh do we need to make a motion to postpone?

Okay. Could Mr. Chair, Miss Liddell is online. Uh Miss Liddell, can you please um allow me to promote you to panelist? We we need someone to speak on behalf of your application or they can wait. She wants to do that. All right. I just in case there was technical difficulties. Not everybody understands what's going on sometimes. So I've seen this happen before which is why I'm being patient. You're being very generous. Very generous. Um

if I were in the other side of the fence, I would want that generosity extended to me. I I see her twice now, so I'm wondering if she's using a different device. I think it's a technical difficulty issue. Mr. Chair, again, without an applicant to present, the department would respectfully request a postponement. That can be done by a motion and a second in a voice vote. Okay. Uh do we have a motion to postpone this case for a later date? So move. I'll second. And Mr. Lee, you second. Okay. Mr. Morris, how do you vote and approve? Yes. Mr. Lee? Yes. Mr. Berino?

Yes. And I likewise vote to postpone this case until a later date. All right. Um, yeah, I see there's a gentleman that would like to speak. Um,

uh, if it's about this particular case, I'm going to I'm going to say no. Okay. Um, you will have an opportunity to provide some testimony when this case reappears uh, before this committee. Yeah, before this board. Okay. Thank you for being understanding. Okay. I think that takes care of the um cases for this evening. We have one more item to address and that is uh approving the last meeting's minutes. And so if someone on the board would like to make a motion to approve those minutes, that would be good. I'll make a motion to approve.

Do we have a second? Thank you, Mr. Morris. You second. So, Mr. Lee, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Verino approved. Mr. Morris approve and I likewise approve the minutes and I think that takes care of all of our items for this evening. And so this meeting is so adjourned. Thank you for your service. We appreciate it very much and have a great weekend. Thank you. You too. Have a long night.